PREFACE: PEREGRINATIONS DOWN MEMORY LANE

Wilga M. Rivers

In 1960 I was looking for an interesting thesis topic. My advisor,

Professor Harold Hand of the University of Illinois, suggested that I combine my
two interests of language teaching and psychology and gave me a month to research
the possibilities in this area. After a concentrated period of reading and searching,
I gathered together my 3 by 5 cards and went to see Professor Hand. I reported to
him that, from my reading, it was clear that, in the present state of the field, it
would be impossible to apply the psychologists’ theories to the processes of
language learning and teaching. To this he replied “Then you go and do it.”

I have always enjoyed responding to a challenge, so off I went to research

anything I could find that might link psychological research to the learning and
teaching of a second language. In 1960, behaviorist psychology, with its
mechanistic emphasis on behavior as being acquired through the rewarding
(reinforcement) of actions and the gradual building up of complex behavior through
the combination of these simple elements, was still the dominant paradigm in most
university departments. The basic process in operant conditioning, as it was called,
was considered to be the stimulus-response or S-R unit. Skinner’s William James
Lectures on Verbal Behavior, given at Harvard in 1948, had finally been published
in hardcover in 1957. In this book, Skinner maintained that learning a language
was not essentially different from learning any other form of behavior; it was a
matter of forming habits by conditioning through reinforcement, albeit most
frequently secondary reinforcement. Verbal Behavior did not have the impact it
might have had earlier, since the tide in psychological thinking was beginning to
turn.

xi
xii WILGA M. RIVERS

In psychology textbooks current at the time, it was rare to find discussions

of personal characteristics such as emotional response or motivation. The chief
“motives” in operant conditioning were hunger, thirst, and sex, as demonstrated in
animal experiments. These seemed to have little application to the learner in the
regular classroom, although some teachers did go to the lengths of giving out candy
as rewards for correct responses. There had to be a better way, it seemed to me.

Throughout the 1950s, structuralism had held sway in the relatively few
Linguistics Departments in the United States. In response to war needs in the
forties, leading linguists had created the Army (later the audiolingual) Method of
teaching languages. In the post-war years this approach had spread to the
universities and schools, supported as it was by the National Defense Education Act
(NDEA, 1958), which funded institutes for teaching teachers audiolingual tenets
and practice. The method laid great emphasis on habit formation to a point of
automatic response. It underplayed the expression of personal meaning in favor of
learning structural patterns of the language. In this way it was compatible with the
prevailing behaviorist paradigm, as well as the approach of structural linguists to
the description of language. In vogue too was Shannon and Weaver’s Information
Theory (1949), with its mathematical underpinnings, the information processing of
cognitive psychology only just appearing on the horizon. John Carroll’s seminal
book on the Study of Language (1953) had been a light in a gray dawn, as he
endeavored, with a great deal of common sense, to bring linguistic theory to the
attention of scholars in other fields.

From the point of view of psychology and classroom language teaching,

the only book available at the time was by Huse (1931). This book was very dated
and bore no relationship to the level of psychological knowledge in 1960. The
promoters of the audiolingual method, however, asserted that their procedures were
based on modern psychological theory. The interesting questions were: Were they?
Was the psychological theory they espoused consonant with our increasing
knowledge of language and language interiorization processes? They certainly
emphasized the production of linguistic responses to stimuli by imitation and
repetition in pattern drills and in memorized dialogues containing the common
patterns of social discourse. They also emphasized habit formation through the
secondary reinforcement provided by immediate knowledge of the correctness or
incorrectness of the learner’s response, in conformance with operant conditioning
theory. They recommended that teachers should respond only to questions of How?
(rarely Why?), since learning by analogy should replace cognitive analysis. Hence,
in classroom practice, questions from students about the language were to be
discouraged. Emphasis was put on rote memorization of spoken language, with as
 PREFACE: PEREGRINATIONS DOWN MEMORY LANE xiii

little recourse as possible to written material until the aural material had been
absorbed and could be repeated. In this way theorists were relying short-term
memory, without paying much attention to the way long-term memory processes
operated.

All learners were expected to be able to learn in the same way; differences
in learning preferences were completely ignored. After all, it was believed, human
beings had learned their first language aurally and effortlessly by imitation and
repetition of their mother’s speech, so why should they not be able to learn a
second language the same way? In 1960 scholars did not have access to the
numerous longitudinal studies of first language acquisition that are now well
established. Ruth Weir’s pioneering research on Language in the Crib, which
showed the amount of cognitive effort the child put into the first language, was not
published until 1962. A plethora of studies from distinguished scholars like Bloom
(1970), Braine (1971), Ervin-Tripp (1971), Slobin (1971a,b), Brown (1973), and
their associates have since shown how individual and varied are the efforts of
children in learning their first language, let alone their second.

There were, of course, voices to be heard dissenting from the classical

behaviorist paradigm. In 1951, the neuropsychologist Lashley had published an
influential article on “The problem of serial order in behavior” in which he made
the case for many interacting systems in the brain and nervous system, rather than
the simple, additive connections operant conditioning would predicate. His was
something of a voice crying in the wilderness, but the minority who appreciated
Lashley’s work recognized it as pointing in an important new direction. The
Gestalt psychologists of the forties were still respected in 1960, although theirs was
not the current bandwagon. Their emphasis on the individual’s organization of
perception so that the whole has a significance different than the sum of its parts
and is individually interpreted prefigured the later theories of cognitive
psychologists. In Canada the neuropsychologist Hebb was setting forth original
views about thinking processes in relation to the organization of the brain (1949)
and influencing such future leaders as Wallace Lambert. Hebb was interested in
perceptual organization, as well as the conceptual growth that comes with
maturation. Piaget’s work in Switzerland, with its analysis of age differences in
thinking and perception, was just beginning to interest American scholars, his book
with Inhelder on the Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence
having appeared in the U.S. only in 1958.

At the University of Illinois, Mowrer (1960a, b) had broken ranks with

classical behaviorist psychologists by emphasizing the importance of the emotions
xiv WILGA M. RIVERS

of hope and fear in the study of human behavior. He maintained that habit was not
a “fixed, automatic, unconscious neural connection or bond between some stimulus
and some response” but that “most behavior [was] under voluntary control”
(1960a; accompanying phonograph record). Osgood, to whom is attributed the
invention of the term “psycholinguistics,” had in the early 50s updated the S-R
formula to include an intervening fractional meaning response that mediated
between the observable S and R and produced distinctive and very individual self-
stimulation, thus furnishing the unobservable stimulus for the response (1953, p.
697). In this formulation Osgood was putting the individual back in the study of
behavior. Moreover, Osgood devoted more than one-third of his 1953 book on
Method and Theory in Experimental Psychology to perception and symbolic
processes like problem-solving, thinking, and language behavior, while Hilgard
(1956), a standard text at the time, had given these subjects all of six pages of
explicit discussion in a book of more than 500 pages.

Considering that a book published in the mid-1960s was probably being

written several years earlier, it is interesting to compare two books brought out by
the same publisher in the same series just a year apart: Hilgard and Bower’s
Theories of Learning, 3rd edition (1966), and Neisser’s Cognitive Psychology
(1967). Both books were influential and widely read. Both were interested in
“how learning goes on,” as Hilgard and Bower stated in their preface. Hilgard and
Bower were shoring up and updating traditional learning theory from Thorndike’s
Connectionism to Freud’s Psychodynamics, with a brief nod towards
neurophysiology and the neuronal networks involved in awareness, arousal, and
memory processes, all still considered within a stimulus-response paradigm.
Neisser’s book, however, was breaking ground for a new approach. In his preface,
he states that the sequence of the book “follows stimulus information ‘inward’ from
the organs of sense through many transformations and reconstructions, through to
eventual use in memory and thought” (p. vii). He was interested in “sensation,
perception, imagery, retention, problem-solving, and thinking” (his italics); for him
“cognition is involved in everything a human being might possibly do,” and
consequently “every psychological phenomenon is a cognitive phenomenon” (p. 4).
This is a far cry from theories based only on what is overtly observable and
measurable.

Meanwhile, George Miller had been concentrating his attention on how

people think and how they communicate. His Language and Communication
(1951) was a beacon. “Original combinations of elements are the lifeblood of
language,” he maintained (p. 79). This book contained the delightfully written and
influential article on “The magical number seven, plus or minus two” (pp. 14-44).
 PREFACE: PEREGRINATIONS DOWN MEMORY LANE xv

Although still in the information theory mode, this article emphasized the
importance of organizing and chunking in memory. I was delighted when Miller,
Galanter, and Pribram’s 1960 book, Plans and the Structure of Behavior, came out
just as I was getting into deeper research for my dissertation topic. These
researchers emphasized the way the individual processed information and
transformed it into action through overall Plans, or strategy, that preceded and
directed lower level Plans, or tactics (p. 16). This seemed to me very applicable to
language use.

Chomsky and transformational-generative grammar were just coming on

the scene in 1960. Syntactic Structures had been published in 1957; Chomsky’s
much quoted review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior appeared in Language in 1959.
In this critique Chomsky stated categorically that “prediction of the behavior of a
complex organism . . . would require, in addition to information about external
stimulation, knowledge of the internal structure of the organism, the ways in which
it processes input information, and organizes its own behavior.” These
characteristics, he further maintained, “are in general a complicated product of
inborn structure, the genetically determined course of maturation, and past
experience” (p. 27). This set out a diametrically opposed position to that of
behaviorism. We were now beginning to hear about the Language Acquisition
Device (LAD), and the bases were being laid for several decades of study of inborn
language capacities. We were also hearing about systems of rules as basic to
language production and the importance of hypothesis testing and learning from
errors.

As Chomsky’s generative grammar moved on through Government and

Binding to Minimalist Syntax, this inborn language faculty based on Universal
Grammar (UG) and hypothesis testing, resulting in parameter setting and resetting,
remained basic and continued to influence much research in first and second
language acquisition. In Words and Things (1958), Roger Brown had already
drawn attention to the fact that children learn to produce new responses that they
have not practiced specifically, but which conform to the system of the language
they have interiorized. Brown’s view undercut the prevailing notion that rote
memorization of many useful sentences of the language in dialogues, and even as
examples of patterns in drills, was sufficient to produce a communicating
individual. His approach was compatible with Chomsky’s assertion that language is
generative, as shown by the fact that we are continually producing comprehensible
sentences that we have never heard before (including this one!). All use of
language, Chomsky maintained, is creative (1966). George Miller later
encapsulated this idea in his unforgettable way, stating that “it would take
xvi WILGA M. RIVERS

100,000,000,000 centuries (one thousand times the age of the earth) to utter all the
admissible twenty-word sentences of English” (1967, p. 80). So much for trying to
memorize the sentences of target language! “Unless it is a cliché,” Miller
continued, “every sentence must come to us as a novel combination of
morphemes.” Fortunately, all this creativity is rule-governed, or we would not
understand each other. As Chomsky reiterated in 1988, real creativity is free
action, but always within a system of rules.

Cognitive psychology and psycholinguistics had now taken off, and we

could learn from the work of Broadbent (1968) and Bever (1970), who centered
their research on perception. Psychologists, however, found a marriage to the
linguists in psycholinguistics to be a rocky road, in part because linguistics, being a
young science, kept changing its theoretical bases, not only across schools of
thought but within schools of thought as well. This led psychologists to declare
their independence in clear terms. In his introduction to Psycholinguistics (1970),
Roger Brown complained about the “rapid clip” at which linguistic theory changed,
finding that this posed “real difficulties for the psychologist who wants to use
linguistic theory in his own work” (p. ix). Slobin declared that it was not the work
of psychologists to be “toolmaker to the linguist;” they had their own work to do
(1971a, p. 24). Already Neisser had pointed out that the cognitive theorist could
not “make assumptions casually” since they had to “conform to the results of 100
years of experimentation” (1967, pp. 4-5). Bever spoke for other cognitive
psychologists when he expressed doubts about the existence of a specialized
Language Acquisition Device, preferring to see as innate various cognitive
structures which enable humans to acquire language as well as to perform other
cognitive operations (1970, p. 352). This independent mindset was liberating in
that it enabled psycholinguists to do work that would not become immediately
obsolete because of linguistic changes over the weekend. Psycholinguists are able
to supply data that help linguists to refine their theories, but they are also interested
in developing theoretical ideas of their own that may help linguists to see whether
their proposals are supported by facts of the real world.

In the 1970s, psycholinguistic research began to drift away from the

dominant Chomskyan linguistic theory. Many psycholinguists found the theories of
Fillmore (1968) in Case Grammar, G. Lakoff (1971) in Generative Semantics,
Chafe (1970) in Relational Grammar, and Halliday (1973) in Functionalism more
useful for their work; all of these theoretical positions were based more on
semantics than syntax. Others like Schlesinger (1977) developed their own theories
from their research. As the century moved into the 80s there was a flurry of
publications setting forth the latest research on the brain. Psycholinguists became
 PREFACE: PEREGRINATIONS DOWN MEMORY LANE xvii

very interested in neuropsychology: how the brain perceives, organizes, stores, and
interconnects information from its environment (both the inner environment of its
own emotions and intentions and the outer environment of the physical context);
how it changes and restructures this information; how it uses in performance what
it has retrieved; and why at acts as it does, thus raising the question of motivation.
(Schumann, in this volume, applies such information in his discussion of the
amygdala as the seat of emotion and its effect on learning.) Coming from another
direction, a cybernetic approach to cognitive processes led to the development of
parallel distributed processing, or PDP (Hinton & Anderson, 1989). The possiblity
of multiple parallel processing had already been proposed by Hebb (1949). Rivers
(1990) discussed the application of PDP to language teaching.

In 1960, second language acquisition studies, as we now know them, were

nowhere in sight. When I was appointed to the Department of Romance Languages
and Literatures at Harvard in 1974, I was delighted to find a group of students at
the Graduate School of Education studying with Courtney Cazden, a first language
acquisition researcher (1968), and Catherine Snow, who had already carried out her
well-known research with Hofnagel-Höhle (1978) on age differences in the learning
of second languages. Cazden and Snow were mentoring students who were writing
pioneer theses on second language acquisition. Those of us with this common
interest gathered at brown bag lunches to discuss exciting new ideas arising from
the students’ research; among the group were John Schumann, Kenji Hakuta,
Herlinda Cancino, Ellen Rosansky, and Ellen Rintell, with some participation from
Marina Burt and Heidi Dulay who were already developing their Creative
Construction theory (1974). Pit Corder, a pioneer in error analysis (1967) with
whom Selinker had worked while elaborating his influential theory on interlanguage
(1972), also visited us from Edinburgh and was most interested to know these
discussions were proceeding. Roger Brown, also at Harvard, had published an
important book on the acquisition of a first language in 1973; his ideas inspired
others to examine second language acquisition at the same level of detail. One of
Brown’s insights was the natural order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes,
which later generated many research projects. Hakuta collaborated with John (Haj)
Ross at MIT on the first course in second language acquisition. It was a very
exciting time to be in the profession.

Language theorists in the 1970s began to realize the importance of social

psychology for their work, and sociolinguistics moved rapidly forward. Labov
(1972) studied how language is actually used in different social contexts, and
Hymes defined “communicative competence” as “what a speaker needs to know to
communicate effectively in culturally significant settings” (1968, p. vii). This work
xviii WILGA M. RIVERS

made a lot of sense to language researchers and language teachers,

counterbalancing Chomsky’s continual emphasis on linguistic competence as being
essentially syntax-based. Throughout this period there was an undercurrent of
interest in Vygotsky’s ideas, developed before his death in 1934, on the social
development of the individual’s thinking processes and their relationship to speech
and language (Vygotsky, 1986). His profound insights came to the surface from
time to time as translations of his work became more readily available; more
recently, they have come to command much greater attention (see Smagorinsky,
this volume).

Interest was aroused in the dynamics of groups and the social roles and
rituals in interaction, highlighted in Goffman’s work (1967), and language teachers
attempted to develop a learning environment where students might acquire
communicative and pragmatic competence. Such attempts to develop ability to
communicate with others in culturally acceptable ways led to a realization of the
importance of understanding the subtleties of other cultures. From the beginning,
the structural linguists had formed strong ties with the anthropologists, Sapir’s
work (1921) being very influential. The anthropologists had identified the patterned
nature of other cultures. In my dissertation, published in 1964 as The Psychologist
and the Foreign Language Teacher, I devoted a complete chapter to the complex
question of understanding other cultures. Linking this question with psychology, I
had written in some detail about Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum’s Semantic
Differential (1957), which attempted to separate out the evaluative factor in
judgments of meaning from the cognitive or denotative (factual) element. This
differential was tested extensively across diverse cultures with interesting results.
Applied linguists found a wealth of material to draw on in sociocultural studies such
as those of Hall (1959, 1966, 1976). We are now very much aware of the
importance of learning to cope in a culture other than our own (Robinson, 1981).

In the 1990s there has been much research centered on the individual
learner, notably the work of Oxford and her associates on learning strategies
(1990). Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences (1993) has also required those interested
in the learning of languages by students of all ages and backgrounds to rethink their
approach. Once we recognize that intelligence is not purely intellectual, but also
verbal, mathematical-logical, spatial, kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, and
intrapersonal, we have much work to do to adapt our teaching to students with
differing learning styles.
A glance at the articles in this volume of the Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics shows how some topics of preoccupation have remained constant and
how much some have changed over forty years. We continue to seek developments
 PREFACE: PEREGRINATIONS DOWN MEMORY LANE xix

connecting psychology and linguistics (see Segalowitz, this volume); we continue to

discuss the effect of syntactic structure on comprehension (Gass and Juffs chapters,
this volume). We are now, however, also discussing much more personal, internal
questions with regard to language learning. The individual learner is now solidly at
the center of our research. We are now reconsidering language aptitude (Sparks
and Ganschow), the importance of age in language learning (Singleton), and
individual differences in learning styles; there is no longer a “one size fits all”
mentality. Motivation (Dörnyei), language anxiety (Horwitz), and the role of
emotion (Schumann) concern us, and we would like to know how and why what
has been learned sometimes dissipates (Hansen). We are interested not only in the
learning of first and second languages, but also in what takes place in the bilingual
mind (Bialystok, Genesee). Reading research has made great strides and thrown
much light on problems of literacy in first (Perfetti, Van Dyke, and Hart) and
second (Geva and Wang) languages.

Why talk about these “old things”? I believe strongly that we should not
forget our predecessors. Whether we are aware of it nor not, we are building on
their foundations. Knowing where we have come from helps us to maintain
perspective as we consider where we are going. It also helps us to avoid
reinventing the wheel or repeating past mistakes. From our predecessors we can
draw much data, as well as notions worth serious consideration in the light of new
knowledge. Who does not value the work of that pioneer of longitudinal studies on
the acquisition of two languages, Werner F. Leopold (1939-1949), who kept daily
records of his daughter Hildegard’s learning of English and German until she was
seven?

Even Thorndike, who concentrated mainly on overt features of physical

behavior, did not ignore the role of emotion and individual characteristics. In
1956, Hilgard referred to the motivational features Thorndike had outlined in 1913:
interest in the work, interest in improvement, significance, problem-attitude,
attentiveness, absence of irrelevant emotion, and absence of worry (p. 21). These
factors sound quite contemporary. Each article in this book draws on the work of
predecessors. Recently, when reading a funding application from a young
colleague who proposed to establish a data bank on worthwhile work in teaching
methodology, I was shocked to discover the references limited strictly to the last
decade. Knowledge does not grow like this; fruit hangs long to mature, and even
after maturity it is relished in preserved form. Old wine is appreciated even
longer. Surely the work of our forebears is more valuable to us than old wine. Let
us savor and rejoice in it.
Wilga M. Rivers
xx WILGA M. RIVERS

Cambridge, Massachusetts
December 2000

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive bases for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes

(Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–362). New
York: Wiley.
Bialystok, E. (this volume). Metalinguistic aspects of bilingual processing.
Bloom, L. (1970). Language development: Form and function in emerging
grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Braine, M. D. (1971). On two types of models of the internalization of grammars.
In D. Slobin (Ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar (pp. 153–186). New
York: Academic Press.
Broadbent, D. E. (1968). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon.
Brown, R. (1958). Words and things. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Brown, R. (1970). Psycholinguistics. New York: The Free Press.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Carroll, J. B. (1953). The study of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Cazden, C. B. (1968). The acquisition of noun and verb inflections. Child
Development, 39, 443-448.
Chafe, W. L. (1970). Meaning and the syntactic structure of language. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of Skinner’s Verbal behavior. Language, 35, 26–58.
Chomsky, N. (1966). Linguistic theory. In R.G. Mead, Jr. (Ed.), Language
teaching: Broader contexts (Proceedings of Northeast Conference 1966)
(pp. 43-49). New York: MLA Materials Center.
Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and politics. Montreal: Black Rose Press.
Corder, S. Pit. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of
Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-169.
Dörnyei, Z. (this volume). New themes and approaches in second language
motivation research.
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). A new perspective on the creative construction
process in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 253-
278.
 PREFACE: PEREGRINATIONS DOWN MEMORY LANE xxi

Ervin-Tripp, S. (1971). An overview of theories of grammatical development. In

D. Slobin (Ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar (pp. 189–212). New York:
Academic Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. Harms (Eds.),
Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York:
Basic Books.
Gass, S. M. (this volume). Innovations in second language research methods.
Genesee, F. (this volume). Bilingual first language acquisition: Exploring the limits
of the language faculty.
Geva, E., & Wang, M. (this volume). The development of basic reading skills in
children: A cross-language perspective.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden
City, NY: Doubleday.
Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Press.
Halliday, M. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward
Arnold.
Hansen, L. (this volume). Language attrition: The fate of the start.
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory.
New York: Wiley.
Hilgard, E. (1956). Theories of learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Hilgard, E., & Bowers, G. (1966). Theories of learning, 3rd ed. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Hinton, G., & Anderson, J. A. (Eds.) (1989). Parallel models of associative
memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Horwitz, E. K. (this volume). Language anxiety and achievement.
Huse, H. R. (1931). The psychology of foreign language study. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.
Hymes, D. (1968). The ethnography of speaking. In J. A. Fishman (Ed.), Readings
in the sociology of language (pp. 99–138). The Hague: Mouton.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to
adolescence. New York: Basic Books.
Juffs, A. (this volume). Psycholinguistically oriented second language research.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
xxii WILGA M. RIVERS

Lakoff, G. (1971). On generative semantics. In D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovits

(Ed.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and
psychology (pp. 232–296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lashley, K. (1951). The problem of serial order in behavior. In L. Jeffress (Ed.),
Cerebral mechanisms in behavior: The Hixon Symposium (pp. 112–136).
New York: Wiley.
Leopold, W. F. (1939-1949). Speech development of a bilingual child: A linguist’s
record, Vols. 1-4. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Mandelbaum, D. (Ed.) (1958). Selected writings of Edward Sapir. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Miller, G. A. (1951). Language and communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Miller, G. A. (1967). The psychology of communication. New York: Basic Books.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. (1960). Plans and the structure of
behavior. New York: Henry Holt.
Mowrer, O. H. (1960a). Learning theory and behavior. New York: Wiley. [With
accompanying phonograph record including discussion by the author].
Mowrer, O. H. (1960b). Learning theory and the symbolic processes. New York:
Wiley.
Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Osgood, C. (1953). Method and theory in experimental psychology. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Osgood, C., Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The measurement of meaning.
Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
New York: Newbury House/Harper and Row.
Perfetti, C., Van Dyke, J., & Hart, L. (this volume). The psycholinguistics of
basic literacy.
Rivers, W. M. (1964). The psychologist and the foreign-language teacher.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rivers, W. M. (1990). Mental representations and language in action. In J. Alatis
(Ed.), Linguistics, language teaching, and language acquisition
(Georgetown University Round Table) (pp. 46-63). Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Robinson, G. N. (1981). Issues in second language and cross-cultural education:
The forest through the trees. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Sapir, E. (1921). Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
Schlesinger, I. M. (1977). Production and comprehension of utterances. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Schumann, J. H. (this volume). Appraisal psychology, neurobiology, and language.
 PREFACE: PEREGRINATIONS DOWN MEMORY LANE xxiii

Segalowitz, N. (this volume). On the evolving connections between psychology and

linguistics.
Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of information.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10,
219-231.
Singleton, D. (this volume). Age and second language acquisition.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Slobin, D. I. (1971a). Psycholinguistics. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Slobin, D. I. (Ed.) (1971b). The ontogenesis of grammar. New York: Academic
Press.
Smagorinsky, P. (this volume). Rethinking protocol analysis from a cultural
perspective.
Snow, C., & Hofnagel-Höhle, N. (1978). Age differences in second language
acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of
readings (pp. 333–344). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (this volume). Aptitude for learning a foreign
language.
Thorndike, E. L. (1913). The psychology of learning. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (Ed. and trans. A. Kozulin).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weir, R. (1962). Language in the crib. The Hague: Mouton.